Jared Kushner SPEECHLESS After Reporter’s Question

Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior
adviser Jared Kushner he did a lot of
defending the president on a lot of
different topics on an interview with
Axios on HBO so let’s get right into it
because I want to show you what happened
when Kushner is asked whether he has
seen Trump do anything racist or bigoted
take a look so for the answer is no
absolutely not
you can’t not be a racist for 69 years
then run for president be a racist and
what I’ll say is that when a lot of the
Democrats call the president a racist I
think they’re doing a disservice to
people who suffer because of real racism
in this country I’m so imagine you have
the same reaction everyone else did
watching that luckily Jonathan Swan the
interviewer in this he had a pretty good
follow-up take a look was birtherism
racist um look I wasn’t really involved
in that I know you wouldn’t mm-hmm was
it racist like I said I wasn’t involved
in that I know you won mm-hmm was it
racist um look I know who the president
is and I have not seen anything in him
that is racist so again I was not
involved in that did you wish he didn’t
do that like I said I was not involved
in that that was a long time ago all
right so that’s his answer to the
follow-up I forget who did it my name is
John King who was like there was a
normal interview going on and then right
after this series of questions began
Jared forgot how to speak like how to
speak in complete sentences so hard to
lie I mean it is obviously affecting him
Jared who I didn’t think was capable of
human emotions I’m not sure I thought he
was capable of hunger maybe thirst okay
fear okay I guess that might have been
the driving factor there but like that I
just break down every single thing about
what happened there first he says that
the president was not racist for 69
years nice or however long it was right
and then suddenly is racist right but
but he has been raised
refusing to cop to that so was that
racist I wasn’t a part of this nobody
asked you you just claimed to know
everything about this man for the past
69 years yeah so were you there were you
now every single day absolutely he’s
that kind of guy and then he says it
does a disservice to people who have
suffered from actual racism which is
like an attempt at the kind of arguments
that conservatives try to make in order
to just confuse people it’s like using a
triple negative they’re just like I have
no idea what you’re saying
right but you seemed confident as you
said it but when you want to talk about
people who were actual victims of racism
how about all the people that weren’t
allowed to move into Trump buildings
because he had racist tenant policies
absolutely ridiculous I guess I don’t
know how else his son-in-law is supposed
to answer a yes or no question that
everyone knows but we have video proof
there are federal documents from of what
you’re talking about there’s a full-page
ad in The New York Times in 1989 like we
have actual proof of his racism there’s
a video of him on the campaign trail you
know so there’s actual proof but I guess
I can’t imagine his son-in-law answering
it but any other way wouldn’t it be
great if Jared was like yes thank you
finally yes he’s so racist right exactly
and then he went to dinner with George
it’s just with that relationship I
wonder how Trump can be okay with his
daughter marrying such a wiener such
like a limp wiener like that’s what it
is and the answer is probably uh he’s
from a big real estate family who did
better than mine but he’s never gonna
challenge me as the dominant figure in
my daughter’s life
great that’s I think this is the first
time I’ve really been able to figure out
what that relationship is like and all
his confidence in Jared Jared might just
be like an okay project manager but
never anything else and what we’ve seen
over and over again is that you’re okay
until you’re not he would Trump yeah so
who knows what the future holds
yeah I don’t know but I wouldn’t skip
ahead a little bit and talk about Russia
okay okay because uh he was also asked
about that infamous Rush
meeting and like just you know straight
up a flick why didn’t you report this to
the FBI why did you go why and there was
a bit of a back-and-forth it’s a I want
to show you here so the question from
swan is does it not set off some alarm
bells when you see an email that the
Russian government wants to help the
campaign Kushner says the email I got on
my iPhone said show up at 4:00 I didn’t
scroll down so on reminds him that it
had Russia in the subject line and then
still no copping to the reality of the
situation is right there you knew what
the meeting was gonna be about and so we
asked him if this happened again would
you report it to the FBI take a look at
his answer call the FBI happen again I
don’t know it’s hard to do hypotheticals
but the the reality is is that we were
not given anything that was salacious
this wouldn’t be hard for me to do
hypotheticals that is any precise
hypothetical where you say yes I would
because you’re hiding behind this
concept that you don’t know the rules
right and you’re just new to this but
the hypothetical answer should be I
would report it to the FBI it’s the
easiest thing to do unless you
consistently do get invites like this
and just don’t want to cop to that fact
right you’re right like you know that
it’ll happen again and you you know that
you won’t report it to the FBI otherwise
like I don’t see how this isn’t saying
yes immediately isn’t a good look for
the administration say yes of course we
would because we didn’t know what was
going on we had nothing to do with that
so of course we would but he doesn’t
want to answer any questions whatsoever
pursue I mean I just that moment when
they asked about the racism
yeah just like what what would you do
what I was not involved in that so you
you can’t make an assessment of
birtherism or any racist act whether it
was racist whether you wanted it to
happen whether you endorsed it because
you weren’t involved in it first of all
that’s like the tacit acknowledgement
and crappiness that allows racism to
persist because people aren’t able to
just say oh no that was bad it was
absolutely races it was absolution
absolutely racially motivated and and he
should just cop to that
thank you for watching this clip from
the damage report for more content from
the show and access the TYT Network
members-only exclusives go to t
y-t-dot-com / Brooke wait no it’s t
whitey dot-com / John go to t whitey
calm / John to sign up

Secretive Bilderberg Meeting Draws Pompeo and Kushner

BERN, Switzerland — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is on a weeklong trip to Europe where he is raising sensitive issues with national leaders — from Iranian missiles to Chinese technology to the economic collapse of Venezuela — but the most colorful conversations could take place this weekend out of public earshot in a secretive conclave at a Swiss lakeside resort.

In Montreux, on the eastern shore of Lake Geneva, political and business leaders from Western nations are gathering for the 67th Bilderberg Meeting, an annual forum in which participants agree not to reveal exactly what was said or who said it. It is a shadow version of Davos, the elite annual winter conference in the Swiss Alps that President Trump has attended once but has also criticized.

The State Department has not even put the Bilderberg Meeting on Mr. Pompeo’s public schedule, though a senior official confirmed he was attending Saturday.

.. No doubt those culinary treats will be on hand at venues in Montreux, to fuel discussion on 11 central topics now hotly debated in countries around the globe:

  1. the future of capitalism,
  2. the weaponization of social media,
  3. artificial intelligence,
  4. Brexit,
  5. China,
  6. Russia and so on.

Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East adviser, is another top administration official planning to attend. The 130 or so participants also include King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands; Stacey Abrams, the American politician; Henry Kissinger, the former senior American foreign policy official; Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google; and David H. Petraeus, the retired general. Some top bank executives are on the list, too.

On at least one subject, climate change, many of the participants are expected to have radically different views than Mr. Pompeo. In early May, the American secretary, speaking at a meeting of the Arctic Council in Finland, praised the changes caused by the melting of ice in the Arctic Circle.

Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” Mr. Pompeo said, while noting the abundance of undiscovered oil and gas, uranium, rare-earth minerals, coal, diamonds and fisheries in the Arctic.

What Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Kushner and the other Bilderberg attendees actually say to each other will be a mystery to most of the public, thanks to the meeting’s use of the Chatham House Rule, which states that although attendees can tell the public what was discussed, generally, participants must not reveal who said what.

Kushner’s immigration plan is a version of a discriminatory effort from more than a century ago

It’s a stretch to place the names of Jared Kushner and Henry Cabot Lodge in the same sentence; it’s difficult even to imagine that Lodge, the aristocratic Massachusetts senator who dominated the nation’s immigration debate from the 1890s into the 1920s, would give Kushner the time of day. But Kushner’s new immigration plan, aimed at reducing immigration from specific nations through the virtual elimination of what he and others have disparaged as “chain migration,” and the simultaneous valorization of the highly educated, is simply a version of a blatantly discriminatory effort Lodge initiated more than a century ago.

A man of uncommon refinement and even greater arrogance, Lodge was a Harvard PhD., the erudite author of more than a dozen books and, in many ways, the archetype of the Boston Brahmin of a century ago. His friend Thomas B. Reed, speaker of the House in the closing years of the 19th century, said Lodge arose from “thin soil, highly cultivated.” Lodge himself celebrated his fellow Brahmins for “their intense belief in themselves, their race, and their traditions.” His idea of the west, said another colleague, was Pittsfield, Mass. Look at John Singer Sargent’s remarkable likeness of the young Lodge that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. You almost feel you are despoiling him by your very presence.

As well you might have been, if you were Italian, or Greek, or a Russian Jew or from any of the other national groups he had in mind in 1895, when he rose on the Senate floor to introduce the first restrictive immigration bill aimed at Eastern and Southern Europeans. The widening streams of emigres pouring out of the impoverished lands between the Baltic and the Mediterranean had broadened to flood stage, and Lodge determined that the best way to keep them out was to make them submit to a literacy test.

Aware of the scant educational opportunities in most of these countries, he told his fellow senators that his bill “will bear most heavily upon the Italians, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, and Asiatics, and very lightly, or not at all, upon English-speaking emigrants.” And, he argued, why should it be otherwise? “The races most affected” by his test, he explained, were those “with which the English-speaking people have never hitherto assimilated, and are alien to the great body of the people of the United States.”

Lodge’s talk was a hit. His closest friend, Theodore Roosevelt — at the time the New York City police commissioner — called it “an A-1 speech,” which pleased Lodge greatly. He was probably even more delighted with the reaction of the “Russian-Nihilistic Club” of Chicago, which burned him in effigy.

Eagerly endorsing the House version of the bill, Lodge’s Massachusetts colleague Rep. Elijah A. Morse declared himself delighted to see that it would exclude “undesirable immigration” from “southern Europe, from Russia, from Italy, and from Greece” — people, he said, who brought to the United States little else than “an alimentary canal and an appetite.”

Lodge’s literacy test bill passed with ease. But on President Grover Cleveland’s very last day in office, he struck it down with a veto, and there were not enough votes in the Senate to override.

Over the next 20 years, Lodge and his colleagues tried again and again, introducing a version of the literacy test into nearly every Congress. Three times it was approved by both chambers; three times it was struck down by veto. Only with anti-European fervor spiking on the brink of World War I, and new theories of “racial eugenics” shaping public debate, was it finally enacted over President Woodrow Wilson’s second veto, in 1917.

But for the anti-immigrationists, the new law was too little too late, and rendered ineffective by a shapely irony: Its two-decade presence on the congressional front burner had encouraged the education of the very people he wished to keep out. The Immigration Restriction League executive committee reported the baleful news that the Italian government was “spending millions on their schools in the last few months in view of the pending bill.” An IRL official wrote, “It is probable that primary schools will be presently established in many parts of Europe,” and consequently the newly enacted literacy test “is likely to diminish in value as a means of restriction as time goes on.”

A few years later, the xenophobes finally got what they wanted when Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, which didn’t mess with half-measures: It slashed immigration by means of brutal quotas aimed at precisely those countries Lodge had singled out nearly three decades earlier. Where once more than 220,000 Italians arrived each year, the number was reduced by the new quota to fewer than 6,500. In 1921, the lands comprising most of the former Russian Empire had sent nearly 190,000 emigrants to the United States; the 1924 law accommodated exactly 7,346.

For the next 41 years, this brutally exclusionary act remained in place, shaping the composition of the nation, and dooming thousands — if not millions — to deprivation and death. When it was finally revoked by Congress in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the new law on Liberty Island, in the shadow of the great statue that had been designed to welcome the unwanted. Had he chosen to give a history of what the 1924 act had been intended to do, Johnson might have invoked the words that Cleveland used in his veto message back in 1897: The literacy test,Cleveland had said, was “the pretext for exclusion.”

I don’t think Lodge would have disagreed, nor, if he’s being honest with himself, would Kushner. A plan that sets up “educational standards” as the primary benchmark for immigration isn’t likely to certify too many people fleeing from, say, Honduras or Yemen. Reeling in the numbers of immigrants granted priority to reunite with family members already here will similarly disadvantage much of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Jared Kushner — and Stephen Miller and President Trump — likely know very little about Henry Cabot Lodge. But he would be proud of them.